JANUARY 1931
STATION CIRCULAR 101
Winter Rations for
the Farm Flock in
Eastern Oregon
Agricultural Experiment Station
Oregon State Agricultural College
CORVAWS
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
T1nn ( -.
1. Ssoo
The;
. ., ...
Portland
Hon. Herman Oliver
Canyon City
Hon. Albert Burch
Hon. C. C. Colt
Portland
Hon. E. C. Pease
Hon. B. F. Irvine
Yortland
Hon. F. E. Callister
Hon. t.. C. Sammons
Portland
Hon. Aubrey Watzek
Dr. E. E. Lindsay, Executive Secretary
--
Medford
The Dalles
Albany
Portland
Salem
STAFF OF AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
W. J. Kerr, D.Sc., LL.D
J. 1'. Jardine, B.S
H. P. Barso, S.ibL..Plant Pathologist in Chg.
F. D. Bailey. M.S...Asso. Pathoioptst, inset.
Sicide and Fungicide Ed., U. .S. D. of .4.
R. S. flesse, M.S
Associate us Farm llgt.
F. M. Bolin, l).V.M...Asssstaut Veterinarian
V. TI. HnIlen. Ph. I)
4ss't Bacteriologist
A. C. Bousiuct, M.S
Horticulturist
(Vegetable Grops)
P. hI. Urandt. A.hI.....Dairy Husband,nan sn
Charge
E. N. Bressman, .\LS.......A:soc. Agronomist
G. C. Brown, U.S...
Horticulturist, flood
River Branch Exp. Station, Hood River
%V. S. Brown, M.S.......11orticu!turist in (ho.
D. E. flullis. M.S..............4sstrtant Chemist
A. S. Burner. M.S......._........Assisiant in
Farm Management
J. C. Burtncr, 1LS....dsso. Dir., News Scrvtce
C. D. Byrne, hl.S.....Dircctor, News Service
Leroy Childs, A B .....Superintende,,t Hood
River Branch Exp. Station, Hood River
Grace M. Cole. A. U.........Ass't Botanist Seed
Lab., U. S. Dept. of Agric. (Seed Analyst)
B. Cooter...........................Orchard l'ore,nan
G. V. Copson, MS.. Bacteriologist in Charøe
G. Vt. Darrow, Ph.D.........Sr. Pomologist in
Charge Small Fruit Inves., I-fort. Crops
and Dis., U. S. Dept. of A,jric.
U. K. Dean, U.S
uperintendent
Umatilla Bran c/s Exp. Station, Hcrnisston
E. hI. Dickinson, l).V.M..................Assistant
Poultry Pathologist
\V. II. Dreesen, Pli.D............A0'l Econo,,iist
T. P. l)ykstra, M.S
.....Assistant Plant
Pathologist, U. S. Dept of Agriculture
F. M. Edwards, B.S...._ 4:st. Animal fins.
baudman, East. Ore. Br Exp. Sta., Union
A. F. Enghretson, U.S
5uerintendent
John Jacob Astor Br. Exj,. .5 Ia., Astoria
F. E. Fox, M.S...Asso. Poultry 1-1iss'andman
L. C. 0. Gentner, B.S.....As.sodat Entoniol.
ogist. So. Ore. Br. ExP. Station. Talent
D. C, dilk.pie, M.S.........Asst. Entomologist
Hood River Branch Experiment Station
L. N. Goodding B.A., B.S Associate Plant
Pathologist, Li. S. Department of Agric.
B. M. Goode, fl.A........
Associate Editor
J. R, Haag, Ph.D Chemist (Aninigl Put.)
H. Hartinan. M.S.........Horiicutturist (Porn.)
F.. M. Harvey, Ph.D.....Horticulturist (Phys.
I). D. Hill, MI.S..._ _As,tociale Agronomist
F. J. Hinnian. M.S............Jr. Entoissologut,
Stored Prod, insect:, U. S. Dept. of A grit.
C. J. Hurd, B.................Ass'l Ag'l Engineer
It. F. Hutchison. 14.5..... 4ssistnt t Supt.
of Harney Valley Br. Exi'. Sb., Burns
C. IL Hyslop, B.S.......Agronomist in Char1ie
V. -r. Johnson, l).V.M...Poultrr Pat holiiqist
I. It. Jones, PIs.l)...Assoc. Dairy Hushand'n
5. S. Jones, M.S.A ..........Clse,nist in Charge
S. Jones, MS .................AssI. Eiitoiiiologist
F. L. Knowlton. B.S.....Poultry Hubaudman
G. %V. Kuhlsnan, M.S.........Assistant in Farm
Management
A. 0. Larson, M.S.,.....Entomnolo gist, Stored-
Prod. Insects, U. S. Dept. of Agric.
hI. H. Lewis. C.E Jrrigation and Drainage
Specialist; Agricultural Eii,jines'r. Buresiii
of Public Roads, U. S. Dept. of Ayrie.
A. G. Lunn. H.S..........Pouitry ilusbandusan
in Charge
President
Director
A. hI. McCapes, D.V.M...A::t. Veterinarian
F. P. McVhorter, Ph.D
Liso, Planr
Pathologist
5. F. Martin, U.S
Jr. Apron., Office of
Cereal Crops and Diseases, U. S. D. of A.
P. %V. Miller, Ph.D Assoc. Plant Pathologist, Horl., Crops and L)is.. U. S. D. of .1.
H. H. Milisap
4j;ent. Bureau of Plant
Industry, U. S. DePt. of Agric.
G. A. Mitchell. U.S.....As.sistant Agronomist,
Office of Dry.Land Agric., U. .5. D. of 4.
D. C. Mote, Ph.D
...Ento,nologist in Chy.
0. 1-1. Muth, I).V.M Assistant Veterinarian
hI. N. Nelson. Phi).....
Agricultural
Econnniist in Charge
0. M. Nelson, M.S
Animal Hiishandmams
...Assi:tant Animal
A. W. Uliver, M.S
Husbandnian
hI. M. Oveson, B.S ....A.rst. to Supt.. Slier.
man County Br. Exp. Sta., Moro
K. L. l'ntter, M.S.........Aninial Hus&andmaii
in Charge
W. L. Powers, Ph.D.....Soil Scientist ii; Clig.
F. F.. Price, B.S ......Agricultural E,sqineer
F.. 'I. Heed, U.S., A.B....
iditor
F. C. Itcimer. M.S......Superintendent Son.
them Oregon Br. Exp. Station, Talent
R. H. Robinson, M.S....-.........Chcmist, Iii.
sectscides and Fungicide:
C. V. Buick, M.S ..........Associate Soil Sci.
eiitist (Fertility)
H. A. Schoth, M.S.....Associate Agronomist.
Forajje Crops, U. S. Dept. of Agric.
C. F., Schuster1 M.S.....Horticulturist, Hart.
Cro.s and Di:., Bureau of Plant Industry',
U. .s. Dept. of Agric.
II. D. Seudder. 13.S...Chief in Farm Man'g't
0. L. Searcy, lt.S _Technician, Vet. Med.
H. 11.. Ss'lby, U.S
.Associale in Farm Myt.
0. Shattuck, M.S Superintendent l-iamney
Valley Branch Experiment Sta.. Burns
J. N. Shaw, U.S., D.V.M...Asst. Veterinarian
5. F. Simmons, M.S.......Asst. Bacteriologist
II. T. Simma, D.V.M...V,'triivarian in Clig.
R. Sprague, Ph.D.......AssiAtant Pathologist.
U. S. Dept. of AVric.
F. Stephens, ILS.....Superintctident Sher.
man County Bronchi Exp. Statio,s, Moro
H. E. Strphenson, Ph.D........._A:sociate Soil
Scientist
L. Sulerud. M.A.......Asst. Ag'l Economist
B. G. Thompson, M.S.._.A.tst. Entomologist
F.. F. Torerson, B.S.....Assistant Sail Scta'ntart (Soil Survey)
R. B. Webb, B.S Agent. Cereal Crops and
Di:., U. S. Dept. of Agric., Sherman Co.
Br. .cralion
C. F. Whitakcr. U.S.
Assistant Chemist
F.. H. Viegand, B.S..__...._.__HorticulturisS
(Horticultural Products)
Joseph Wilcox, M.S.........Asst. Eiitonio!ogisl
_...Ho,,it Economist
ifaud \Vilson, B S
Gustav Wilster, Ph.D....__.Associate in Dairy
Manufacturing
.Superintendeiit
Robt. Withycombe, B.S
Eastern Oregon Br. Exp Station. Union
H. A. Work, lI.S...Asst. Irrigation Engineer,
Div. of Ag'l Engineering, U, S. I). of A.
S. hI, Zeller. Ph.D......,........Plant Pathologist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IntroductionPlan of the Experiments, Feeds, Stock Used, Shelter
and Equipment
Rations Before and After Lambing
5
6
Corn, Pea-and-bald-barley, and Sunflower Silage with Alfalfa Hay
10
Different Amounts of Pea-and-bald-barley Silage vith Alfalfa Hay
10
Alfalfa Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay and Silage
10
Farm Flock Record
11
Maintaining the Flock
12
Fleece Weights
13
Monthly Gains of Lambs
13
Financial Considerations
14
SUMMARY
Alfalfa hay without other feeds proved entirely satisfactory for wintering breeding ewes.
One pound of silage and likewise one pound of grain
fed in addition to alfalfa hay to ewes after lambing produced a slight but similar increase in the gains made by
the lambs.
One pound of silage added to the hay ration throughout the winter added to the expense but did not improve
the ration. The lambs were slightly larger at birth but
seemingly not as strong as those from ewes fed alfalfa
alone.
Two or three pounds of silage fed throughout the
winter in addition to alfalfa produced no better results
than one pound of silage.
Pea and bald-barley silage, corn silage, and sunflower
silage are apparently of equal value when fed with alfalfa
hay for wintering breeding ewes.
A 100-percent lamb crop at marketing time has under
these conditions paid the market price for feed, paid for all
labor, taken care of the death loss and replacement, and
paid interest on the livestock investment. Lambing percentages above 100 percent would of course give greater
returns. A good farm flock in Eastern Oregon can be
made to produce an average lamb crop of 137 percent,
counted at marketing time.
Winter Rations for the Farm Flock
in Eastern Oregon
By
ROBERT WITHYCOMBE, F. M. EDWARDS, and E. L. PoTTER
The five objects of these tests were: (1) to determine a satisfactory
winter ration for breeding ewes; (2) to compare the results obtained from
feeding alfalfa hay and silage both before and after lambing with those
obtained from feeding alfalfa hay alone; (3) to determine the value of the
addition of silage and of grain after lambing to a ration of alfalfa hay;
(4) to compare different kinds of silage and different amounts of silage
when fed with alfalfa hay; (5) to obtain a detailed record for a farm flock
of grade ewes.
Plan of the experiments. The Station flock was divided for experimental winter feeding into lots containing ewes of as near the same age,
quality, condition, and weight as possible. Complete records were kept for
each of the tests. The ewes were all run as one flock during the pasture
season and separated into their respective lots during the winter feeding
period. They were branded and tattooed for identification.
Feeds. The feeds used in these tests were produced on the Station
farm and were generally of good quality. The alfalfa hay was fed as it
came from the stack, except when the top or bottom of the stack was
moldy or damaged. Similar cuttings of alfalfa hay were fed to all lots on
test at the same time during any one particular period of the test. The hay
was fed twice daily. The crops used for silage were corn, field peas and
bald barley, and sunflowers. Silage was hauled fresh from the silo and fed
once a day except when more than one pound per day was fed, in which
case two equal feeds were given. Grain was fed whole and in two feeds
per day.
The pasture consisted of native meadow, blue-grass, sweet clover, and
grain stubble on irrigated and subirrigated lands.
Stock used. The ewes used for the first test were range ewes of unknown breeding, purchased in October, 1917. Their appearance indicated
considerable proportion of fine-wool blood, together with a little black-face
breeding. The rams used in all cases were good pure-bred Hampshires.
The better ewe lambs each year were kept for replacement purposes. The
original ewes were used for only two years. In subsequent years the ewes
used were all descendants of the original stock. By 1930 most of the ewes
in the flock had three to five top crosses of Hampshire breeding. The
ewes were generally in a good, thrifty condition at the beginning of each
test and all had sound mouths.
Shelter and equipment. The ewes were fed in open lots, which were
fairly well protected for feeding and lambing. In feeding hay, panels were
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 101
used, and the grain and silage were fed in troughs. The ewes had free
access to running water and rock salt ( ground) at all times.
Feed lois were kept well bedded with straw, especially during lambing.
After lambing the ewes and lambs were moved into a shed and kept in
small pens for a few days, after which they were placed in outside lots.
RATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER LAMBING
Four years' work on rations for ewes before and after lambing has
been completed. The rations fed to the different lots were as follows:
Before lambing
Lot 1...Alfalfa hay
Lot 2Alfalfa hay
Lot 3Alfalfa hay
After lambing
Alfalfa hay
Alfalfa hay and 1 pound grain
Alfalfa hay and 1 pound silage
Alfalfa hay and 1 pound silag
Lot 4Alfalfa hay and 1 pound silage
The grain fed was whole barley except one year, when whole oats was
used. Pea-and-bald-barley silage was used during all four years.
Figure 1. Typical lot at the beginning of the tests. All lots were as nearly alike as it was
possible to get them.
Table I gives a summary of the records of weights, gains, and feed for
the four years.
The average length of the feeding periods for the four years was 98
days and of this the ewes were on the "before lambing" ration for an
average of 52.5 days and on the "after lambing" ration for 45.5 days. The
ewes were in good, thrifty condition when the test began. They were given
a full feed of alfalfa hay for the entire time, but the grain or silage was
limited to one pound per head daily for the time fed.
WINTER RATIONS FOR THE FARM FLOCK IN EASTERN OREGON
7
TABLE I. RATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER LAMBING
Summary of four years' work with a total of 102 ewes per lot
Average length of test 98 days
All lots fed all the alfalfa hay they would eat throughout the test
Lot 1,
per head
Lot 2,
per head
Lot 3,
per head
Lot 4,
per head
Grain after
Silage after
lambing
Silage through-.
1aznbint
Lb.
Lb.
Lb.
Lb.
177.0
167.1
176.0
167.0
176.6
168.3
177.1
168.4
10.2
10.1
9.5
9.8
20.1
9.9
19.2
17.8
8.3
18.5
Feed in addition to
alfalfa
Initial weight
Final weight
Gain before lambing,
52.5 days
Loss during and after
lambing-45.5 days..
Net loss for 98 days....
9.1
out the winter
87
Feed per day-.
Alfalfa hayOffered
Refused
Consumed
Grain
Silage
5.51
.47
5.04
5.28
.49
4.7
.65
5.29
.46
4.83
4.95
.55
.66
.93
4.40
The ewes gained an average of 10 pounds per head before lambing and
lost from 18 to 20 pounds during lambing, making a net loss ranging from
eight to ten pounds. The ewes were in good condition in all cases, as is
indicated by their weights. The difference in gains and losses between the
lots was so small as to be within the limit of experimental error.
The amount of alfalfa hay fed to the first three lots before lambing was
nearly the same. The ewes in these three lots were fed an average of 4.4
pounds of hay a day. Of this amount 0.32 pound was refused. Lot 4, which
had one pound of silage a day throughout the winter, ate 0.3 pound less hay
than the lots without silage.
TABLE II. HAY CONSUMED DAILY PER EWE BEFORE AND AFTER LAMBING
Summary of four years' work with a total of 102 ewes per lot
Average length of test 98 days
All lots fed all the alfalfa hay they would eat throughout the test
Lot2
Lot 3
Lot4
Grain after
lambing
Silage after
lambing
Silage throughout the winter
Lb.
Lb.
4.25
4.03
Lb.
4.09
3.82
5.95
1.70
5.67
1.64
5.69
1.60
Ln 1
Feed in addition to
alfalfa
Before lambing
After and during
lambitig ...................
Increase
Lb.
506
1.24
The lambs ate some hay and doubtless some of this increase in consumption is due to that.
Table III gives the lambing record of the various lots, figured on the
basis of the ewes that actually lambed.
8
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 101
TABLE III. LAMBING RECORD
Average of four years' work with a total of 102 ewes per lot
Lot2
Lot3
Lot4
Grain after
ainbing
Silage alter
lambing
Silage through-
183.2
17S.I
%
173.4
%
175.8
9.9
173.3
6.9
166.4
14.6
163.5
11.7
20.0
155.8
6.3
149.5
LoLl
Feed in addition to
alfalfa
%
Lambs born
Lambs lost during
and before end of
lambing
Lambs marked
Lambs lost on pasture.
Lambs matured
163.5
161.7
10.6
151.1
out the winter
The percentage of lambs born was high in all lots. The difference in
the number of lambs born in Lots 1, 2, and 3 was apparently due to causes
other than feed as these three lots were handled and fed as nearly alike as
possible until the lambs were born. Lot 4 had silage before lambing, but
since the silage was fed for only 52.5 days before lambing and since the
"number of lambs born" includes the dead lambs, it would seem that the
silage fed for this short period had no effect on the number of lambs born.
There was a marked difference, however, in the number of lambs lost
during the lambing season between Lot 1 on straight alfalfa and Lot 4
which had silage through the winter. There was also a difference in the
birth weights. The lambs from Lot 4 averaged at birth 9.56 pounds while
the lambs from the other three lots averaged 9.33 pounds, or .23 pound less.
The lambs from the ewes that had silage through the winter were therefore
larger at birth but somewhat weaker.
During the summer the lots were all run together and were separated
only when the lambs were weighed. The average loss of lambs during the
summer was 6 percent. During the third year of this test dogs caused a
heavy summer loss, especially in Lot 3. If the loss caused by dogs were
deducted from the total loss for each lot, the number of lambs lost during
the summer in Lots 1, 3, and 4 would be exactly the same. It was apparent
that the difference in the summer losses for each of the different lots was
not caused by the difference in winter feeds. The lambs seemed strong and
healthy when they were turned on to spring pasture. The losses were due
to bloat, dogs, and unknown causes.
Final weights were taken and the test for the year terminated at the
time the wether lambs were marketed. The wether lambs were sold to
local shippers with the exception of two years when they were shipped by
the Station to the North Portland market. Some of the ewe lambs were
kept to replace old ewes in the Station flock and the others were sold to
local sheepmen for breeding stock. The first two years of the experiment
all lambs in each lot were weighed together. During the last two years the
single and twin lambs of each lot were weighed separately. The average
weight of the lambs when the test was ended was 87 to 90 pounds at the
Station, weighed off pasture and as soon as separated from the ewes,
without shrink.
The difference in the average gains shown by the lambs of the various
lots at marketing time is largely attributed to the rations fed to the ewes
WINTER RATIONS FOR THE FARM FLOCK IN EASTERN OREGON
9
TABLE IV. GAIN FOR LAMBS, BIRTH WEIGHT TO MARKETING WEIGHT
Average for four yearsPer-head basis
Feed fed ewes in addition to alfalfa hay
Lot 1
Lot2
Lot3
Lot 4
None
Grain after
Silage after
lainbing
Silage through-
Lb.
80.87
2.47
Lb.
Lb.
81.35
2.95
Lb.
Gain per lamb
Difference over Lot 1
78.40
lambing
out the winter
80.83
2.43
after lambing. The feed evidently influenced the quantity of milk produced
by the ewe and this in turn accounts for the gains made by the lambs. The
greater gains of the lambs in Lots 2, 3, and 4 would make possible the
marketing of these lots approximately one week sooner than for Lot 1,
and at the same weight.
The addition of 1 pound of grain to a full feed of alfalfa hay for 30 days
after lambing replaced 0.43 pound hay per day and produced lambs that
showed a total gain at marketing time of 2.47 pounds more than lambs
from ewes fed only alfalfa. For each lamb matured 19 pounds of grain was
fed.
The addition .of 1 pound of silage to a full feed of alfalfa hay for 30
days after lambing replaced 0.39 pound of hay per day and produced a lamb
that showed a total gain at marketing time of 2.43 pounds more than lambs
from ewes fed only alfalfa. For each lamb matured 19 pounds of silage
was fed.
In the daily ration of 1 pound of silage and a full feed of alfalfa hay
before and after lambing, the 1 pound of silage replaced 0.56 pound of hay
per day for the entire period and produced a lamb with 2.95 pounds more
gain at marketing time than lambs from ewes fed only alfalfa. For each
lamb matured 64 pounds of silage was fed.
Grain and silage fed after lambing show about equal results. Both
apparently increased the amount of milk produced by the ewes. The lambs
of the two lots made approximately the same gains.
Figuring the cost of the feed required to make the additional gain per
lamb and crediting for the hay saved, with alfalfa hay at $10.00, silage
$5.00, and grain at $30.00 per ton, each additional pound of gain made by
feeding grain during and after lambing cost 100. Each pound of additional
gain made by feeding silage during and after lambing cost 2.30, while the
additional gain made by feeding silage throughout the winter cost 4.60 per
pound of gain.
Considered from all angles these tests indicate the following: (1)
Straight alfalfa hay throughout both winter and lambing season is very
satisfactory but may be slightly improved by the use of 1 pound of silage
after lambing. The erection of a silo for this one purpose, however, would
hardly be practicable for less than 2,000 ewes, and that number would need
only 30 tons. (2) The use of silage throughout the winter was expensive
and any increase in size of lambs was offset by heavier loss of lambs during
the lambing season. (3) Grain fed after lambing gave no better results
than an equal weight of silage. (4) The exact amount of gain obtained
from this supplemental feeding varied greatly in the different tests and in
some cases the supplemental feeding produced no additional gain.
10
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 101
CORN, PEA-AND-BALD-BARLEY, AND SUNFLOWER
SILAGE WITH ALFALFA HAY
One year's work on rations of alfalfa hay fed with different kinds of
silage shows little difference in the comparative value of these silages.
The pea-and-bald-barley and the corn silage seemed to be relished a little
better by the ewes, but the gains made by the different lots were approxi-
mately the same.
DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF PEA-AND-BALD-BARLEY
SILAGE WITH ALFALFA HAY
In one year different amounts of pea-and-bald-barley silage (1, 2, and 3
pounds) were fed with alfalfa hay for a 60-day feeding period before
lambing. In this one test the use of 1 pound of silage was the most satisfactory in replacing hay as it replaced nearly as much as 2 pounds and more
than 3 pounds of silage. No detrimental effects were noticed during lamb-
ing from the use of more than 1 pound of silage. There was also no
apparent difference in the condition of the ewes.
ALFALFA HAY VS. ALFALFA HAY AND SILAGE
Seven years' work with 14 lots, containing 359 ewes, on winter rations
comparing alfalfa hay and alfalfa hay and silage, shows results similar to
those shown by Lots 1 and 4 of the four-year experiment already quoted.
The average for the seven years shows that 1 pound of pea-and-bald-barley
silage fed with a ration of alfalfa hay saved 0.43 pound of hay per day for a
60-day period before lambing. The percentage of lambs dropped figured
on the number of ewes that lambed was nearly the same-180.0 percent for
the straight-alfalfa-hay lot and 180.1 percent for the alfalfa-hay-and-silage
lot. The loss of lambs during the lambing period was 4.01 percent greater
for the lots receiving silage and alfalfa hay as compared to the lots on
alfalfa hay alone.
Figure 2. The experimental farm flock on pasture.
WINTER RATIONS FOR THE FARM FLOCK IN EASTERN OREGON 11
FARM FLOCK RECORD
In order to answer the many inquiries received as to just what a farm
flock will do through a series of years, a complete record was kept of the
performance of the Experiment Station flock. This record includes all of
the ewes on the farm, regardless of how fed or handled. Since the cost of
maintaining a flock is determined by the number of ewes bred, the figures
are all given on that basis.
TABLE V. LAMBING RECORD-13 YEARS-1918 TO 1930 INCLUSIVE
Total lambs and losses per 100 ewes bred
Ewc
Year
lot q
Dead
sum- before
her
bred
228
119
47
102
108
100
99
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
lamb.
jug
Dry
%
1.32
3.52
%
14.90
10.10
Lambs
lost
Lambs
marked
2.02
6.31
%
121
139
170
166
128
184
193
163
111
.90
99
100
102
122
194
1.96
1.64
4.04
7.00
4.90
4.10
8.25
152
166
136
161 t
1.12
8.19
151.15
159
161
1
%
10.50
11.60
10.60
13.70
12.00
17.00
37.40
16.20
15.20
13.00
9.80
8.20
9.79
%
111
128
160
152
116
167
156
147
143
148
142
158
126
13.53
137.62
on
Lambs
matured
%
%
pasture
ing
5.88
24.10
3.00
Lambs
lost
during
lamb-
Lambs
born
4.63
9.00
3.03
5.41
7.07
11.00
1.96
2.46
10.30
I
6.38
111
158
153
141
136
137
140
156
116
136.71
'No record.
The variations of the farm flock lamb record, including the high and
low percentages, were as follows:
Low
Ewes dead before lambing
Ewes dry
High
3.52
24.10
193.00
37.40
167.00
11.00
158.00
121.00
Lambs born
8.20
Lambs lost during lambing
111.00
Lambs marked
1.96
Lambs lost on pasture
111.00
Lambs matured
It will be noted that the lowest lambing percentage was the first year,
when the experiment started with ewes of uncertain age and breeding. At
the beginning of the second year nearly half of these older ewes were sold.
The lamb crop the second year is therefore distinctly better. The third year
all of the old ewes were sold and only their daughters remained in the
flock. The effect of this culling is shown plainly in the lamb crop. In 1930,
on account of a desire to increase the size of the flock, very little
culling was done and the resulting lamb crop was below average. The large
number of dry ewes and the comparatively smaller lamb crop of 1922 is
attributed to a ram that proved to be a poor breeder.
12
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 101
The highest percentage of lambs was born in 1924. This year also
shows the largest loss during lainbing. There was an unusually large percentage of twins and triplets and the losses were largely from these.
The lowest loss of lambs was in 1929. The lambs in that year were
unusually strong and vigorous but the cause of this extra strength and
vigor is not known.
The summer loss of lambs was highest in 1927. Of the 11 lambs lost
this year 7 were killed by dogs. The following year, 1928, the loss was the
lowest, with only two lambs lost on pastureone from bloat and one from
cause unknown.
TABLE VI. EWE LOSSES PER 100 EWES BREDEIGHT YEARS
Year
Number of
ewes
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
100
99
Total
Feed lot
3.00
111
.90
99
100
102
122
194
3.00
1.96
3.28
927
1.40
Pasture
6.00
9.09
14.41
5.05
3.00
3.92
4.92
6.70'
To September 1, 1930.
Table VI shows that the total yearly loss of ewes (feed lot and pasture)
for the eight years was 8.09 percent. The high summer loss of 14.41 percent
for the year 1925 was due to bloat on alfalfa. Of the 17 ewes lost that year
9 were lost from bloat. For the entire period 20 percent of the total loss of
ewes was caused by bloat, 3 percent by dogs, 5 percent by lambing and
udder trouble, and the remainder by other causes.
MAINTAINING THE FLOCK
Ewe lambs kept for the flock were selected from the year's lamb crop
at marketing time. Care was taken to select only hardy lambs of good
mutton conformation and Hampshire type. These lambs were fed alfalfa
hay aiid usually some grain or grain screenings during the winter, with the
idea of keeping them growing in a good thrifty condition and making some
gain. The following spring, when the ewe lambs were approximately one
year old, they were turned in with the flock. These yearlings were bred to
drop their first lambs in the spring that they were two years old. For a
farm flock of approximately 100 ewes it was found necessary to keep 20 to
25 ewe lambs each year for the replacement of ewes lost and old ewes sold.
The average yearly loss of breeding ewes was 8 percent. By carefully
selecting ewe lambs and culling the breeding flock closely, it was possible
to keep a flock of good ewes with sound mouths.
WINTER RATIONS FOR THE FARM FLOCK IN EASTERN OREGON 13
FLEECE WEIGHTS
A complete record of.the wool produced by the farm flock has been
kept since 1922. The sheep were sheared in May or June of each year. The
average is as follows:
7.45 pounds
Ewes more than one year old
8.68 pounds
Ewes one year old
9.32 pounds
Rams
7.71 pounds
Flock average
MONTHLY GAINS OF LAMBS
For two years the lambs were all weighed once a month. The average
birth weight of these lambs was 9.42 pounds. Their average weight when
turned on to pasture was 18.4 pounds. After the ewes and lambs were
turned on to pasture the average daily gain of the lambs by months was
as follows:
1st month.. 0.54 pound
2d month.....53 pound
3d month.....47 pound
4th month-----41 pound
5th month.....25 pound
The actual inventory, death loss, and sales for a farm flock of 100
breeding ewes were found to be as follows:
Invenfory
Breeding ewes
Rams
100
2
23
Ewe lambs for replacement
Total
125
10
Death loss (at 8 percent)
Sales
Lambs (matured 137 but kept 23 for replacement).... 114 head
13 head
Old ewes
963 pounds
Wool
Table VII shows the yearly average of all the feeds fed to the farm
flock for the six-year period.
TABLE VII. WINTER FEED PER HEAD, AVERAGE 1924.1929 INCLUSIVE
Average length of winter feeding 132 days
Alfalfa hay
Offered
Refuced
Coneumed
SiIae ---------._-.-.--
Gram
Grain screeningc
Molasses
Ewes
Ewe lambs
Rams
Lb.
564
49
Lb.
274
Lb.
42
none
515
17
51
none
17
257
34
110
2.4
356
14
342
3
27
70
none
14
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 101
The ewes, and in some years the ewe lambs, were separated into differ-
ent lots for experimental winter feeding work. This partly accounts for
the number of different feeds used. The experiments with alfalfa hay alone
have shown that the feeds other than alfalfa, while helpful, were not
necessities.
The flock was run on the farm pastures for the portion of the year
when not in the feed lot. There was also a little overlapping of hay and
pasture.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
All the facts necessary in order to determine the cost of production
and the income have already been given, except the prices of the feed and
pasture and the market price of the product. These items, however, will
vary from year to year and from farm to farm. It may be said briefly that
for the period of these tests, 1918-1929, the wool and a lamb crop of 100
percent counted at maturity would have paid a fair market price for feed,
labor, interest, and all other items of cost, including the purchase of rams
and the maintenance of the ewe lambs kept for replacement purposes.
With good care and management it is possible to obtain lambing percentages in excess of 100 percent. Lambs in excess of 100 percent greatly
increase the flock returns without materially increasing the costs, and
therefore greatly increase the net profit.